Plasmonic Al nanopyramid array sensor for monitoring the attaching and spreading of cells

Disposable Polymeric Nanostructured Plasmonic Biosensors for Cell Culture Adhesion Monitoring

“…Furthermore, Figures 2D,E show the plasmonic band displacement and the calibration curve, correspondingly; obtained by flowing different HCl solutions over the sensing areas, achieving a bulk refractive index sensitivity of 332.17 ± 0.71 nm/RIU in good agreement with the value previously reported by López-Muñoz (2021) . The obtained bulk sensitivity value is highly competitive and in the same order as those previously reported by engineered plasmonic nanostructures for cell adhesion monitoring ( Borile et al, 2019 ; Chang et al, 2019 ; Hou et al, 2019 ; Solis-Tinoco et al, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ). The LOD of the biosensing experimental set-up was calculated as previously reported ( López-Muñoz et al, 2017 ), the estimated value is near 3.43 × 10 −4 RIU (see Supplementary Figure S2 ).…”

“…Finally, the addition of an automated monitoring system could allow tracking adhesion kinetics with high time resolution (in the order of seconds) for long culture time (days or more) that could help to detect phenotypical changes in the cells. Aluminium nanopyramids (Zhang et al, 2019) Soft nanoimprint lithography Up to 475 nm/RIU Gold nanopillars (Solis-Tinoco et al, 2019) Shadow sphere lithography Up to 206 nm/RIU Gold nanodots (Chang et al, 2019) UV nanoimprint lithography ≈300 nm/RIU Gold nanogratings (Borile et al, 2019) Laser interference lithography 300 °/RIU Aluminium nanoslits (Hou et al, 2019) Thermal nanoimprint Up to 471 nm/RIU + Gold nanocrystals* Blu-ray discs (thermal nanoimprint) ≈330 nm/RIU + (Lee et al, 2017), *this article.…”

“…Furthermore, improving accuracy of cell seeding and adhesion can reduce the variability intra- and inter-experiments ( Van Kooten et al, 1997 ; Khalili and Ahmad, 2015 ; Acharya and Yap, 2016 ). Although the cell adhesion to a surface is a complex process, in terms of morphology, it can be described as a change from spheroids to a biaxial extension in which there is an increase of focal adhesion sites between the substrate and actin cytoskeleton ( Khalili and Ahmad, 2015 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ). As a consequence of this increase of focal adhesion sites, the surface contact area between the cell and the substrate increases during the cell adhesion ( Gallant et al, 2005 ).…”

“…These advantages are mainly related to an enhanced surface sensitivity ( Špačková et al, 2018 ); and the potential to detect the surface interactions using simple optical arrays based on transmission/reflectance detection schemes instead of bulky and complex coupling methods (i.e., those based on attenuated total internal reflection by prism coupling) ( Lopez et al, 2017 ). There have been described different approaches of plasmonic biosensors based on nanostructured materials for cell monitoring in the last years ( Borile et al, 2019 ; Chang et al, 2019 ; Hou et al, 2019 ; Solis-Tinoco et al, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ); however, most of them involve a fabrication by complex lithographic methods and, as a result, lack of batch-to-batch reproducibility analysis of the plasmonic performance of the sensors.…”

Recent Progress in Optical Sensors for Biomedical Diagnostics

“…The sensor was fabricated using a composite of tungsten sulphide nanorod array on titanium mesh with DNA functionalised AuNPs (size = 18 ± 1 nm) as a sensor platform and a multiplexed signal amplifier in the form of a nanohybrid of AgNPs (lattice spacing = 0.27 nm) and zinc metal-organic framework nanozyme. Other geometries that have been widely explored in recent years for developing LSPR sensors include nanopyramids [95,104,105], nanourchins [106][107][108][109], nanocups [92,[110][111][112][113], nanoholes [114][115][116][117] and nanoislands [118][119][120][121][122].…”